Tyra Shante Sanders v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.) ( 2017 )

MEMORANDUM DECISION
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D),
this Memorandum Decision shall not be FILED
regarded as precedent or cited before any Dec 19 2017, 7:15 am
court except for the purpose of establishing CLERK
the defense of res judicata, collateral Indiana Supreme Court
Court of Appeals
estoppel, or the law of the case. and Tax Court
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
Kurt A. Young Curtis T. Hill, Jr.
Nashville, Indiana Attorney General of Indiana
Ruth A. Johnson Henry A. Flores, Jr.
Marion County Public Defender Deputy Attorney General
Agency, Appellate Division Indianapolis, Indiana
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Tyra Shante Sanders, December 19, 2017
Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No.
49A02-1705-CR-01084
v. Appeal from the Marion Superior
Court
State of Indiana The Honorable Sheila A. Carlisle,
Appellee-Plaintiff. Judge
The Honorable Stanley E. Kroh,
Magistrate
Trial Court Cause No.
49G03-1510-F4-036905
Mathias, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1705-CR-01084 | December 19, 2017 Page 1 of 4
[1] The Marion Superior Court revoked Tyra Shante Sanders’s (“Sanders”)
probation and ordered her to serve the remainder of her suspended sentence in
the Department of Correction. Sanders appeals and argues that the State failed
to prove that she violated her probation.
[2] We affirm.
Facts and Procedural History
[3] In May 2016, Sanders pleaded guilty to Level 4 burglary. She was ordered to
serve 730 days with 701 days suspended to probation. As a condition of
probation, Sanders was placed on GPS monitoring.
[4] Sanders was instructed to keep the GPS device charged. Specifically, Sanders
agreed to charge the GPS unit for “a minimum of two hours per day or more if
required to ensure the battery remains charged at all times.” Tr. p. 10.
[5] On March 12, 2017, at 9:30 a.m., Community Corrections received a
notification that Sanders’s GPS device was off-line. A telephone call was placed
to Sanders’s residence at that time to notify her that the device needed to be
charged. Sanders was not at home, but her mother called her to let her know
that the GPS unit was not working. Sanders was at her aunt’s house
approximately fifteen minutes away from her residence.
[6] At 2:45 p.m., over five hours later, Sanders took her GPS unit to the GPS
maintenance center. Sanders spoke to a Community Corrections employee who
told Sanders that she could buy another charger or go home to charge the GPS
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1705-CR-01084 | December 19, 2017 Page 2 of 4
unit. Sanders elected to return home to use the charger she had already
purchased. Sanders’s GPS unit came on-line at 5:09 p.m. Aside from the brief
time Sanders was at the maintenance facility, her location was unmonitored for
approximately seven and a half hours.
[7] The trial court concluded that by failing to keep the GPS unit charged, Sanders
violated her probation. The court observed that a significant amount of time
elapsed between the 9:30 a.m. notification that the GPS unit had died and
Sanders’s attempt to resolve the issue by taking the unit to a maintenance
facility at 2:45 p.m. that afternoon. The court stated, “I guess it begs the
question why you just didn’t go home and charge it at your home rather than
wait at your aunt’s house.” Tr. p. 34. After noting her two prior violations of
probation, the trial court revoked Sanders’s probation and ordered her to serve
the remainder of her suspended sentence. Sanders now appeals.
Discussion and Decision
[8] Sanders argues that the State failed to prove that she violated her probation.
“Probation is a matter of grace left to trial court discretion, not a right to which
a criminal defendant is entitled.” Prewitt v. State, 878 N.E.2d 184, 188 (Ind.
2007). It is within the discretion of the trial court to determine probation
conditions and to revoke probation if the conditions are violated. Id. We review
the trial court’s decision to revoke probation for an abuse of discretion. Id. An
abuse of discretion occurs where the decision is clearly against the logic and
effect of the facts and circumstances. Id. The State must prove the probation
violation by a preponderance of the evidence. Ind. Code § 35-38-2-3(f).
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1705-CR-01084 | December 19, 2017 Page 3 of 4
[9] Sanders argues that the trial court’s conclusion that she did not take the steps
necessary to charge her GPS unit “within a sufficient amount of time” is not
supported by the evidence. Appellant’s Br. at 12. Sanders contends that the
State failed to prove the time that her mother called to tell her that her GPS unit
had died.
[10] Sanders was required to keep her GPS unit charged and she failed to do so.
Sanders admitted that the GPS unit died at 9:30 a.m. and that a phone call was
placed to her residence in the morning. Tr. p. 27. She claimed that she was
unable to take her GPS unit to the downtown maintenance facility until the
afternoon because she did not have a ride. Tr. pp. 27–28. This evidence is
sufficient to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that Sanders was notified
that her GPS unit died shortly after Community Corrections placed a call to her
residence. Moreover, Sanders violated her probation simply by failing to keep
the GPS unit charged. Tr. pp. 8, 10–11.
[11] For all of these reasons, the trial court acted within its discretion when it
revoked Sanders’s probation.
[12] Affirmed.
Vaidik, C.J., and Crone, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1705-CR-01084 | December 19, 2017 Page 4 of 4